The problem with this is that there is actually a very nasty corporate war on inconvenient science, and it's been around for a long time. People try to make it a psychological personal thing. but it isn't. It is mainly fought by PR companies that are very well funded. And yes they use right wing anger very effectivly.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

The examples of "liberal hatred of science" on this thread illustrate how one sided this war is.

Like cat lover and ornithologists. Does anybody think David Sibley gets death threats from irate feral cat feeders. Do feral cat feeders deny that their cats kill birds. I think they might be surprised by the numbers, but I think they get the principle. But for some reason I don't think any well paid media hosts are accusing birders of lying about this. I don't think there are thousands of press releases from Purina's PR group defending feeding wild cats. And why does anybody think cat ladies are ladies or liberals. The only one I know is an old republican man.

Or Monsanto. This one one is more difficult, since the arguments seem to be more about the business model than the science, and I really can't follow the technical arguments. The main source of anger seems to be that Monsanto's business practice has caused a lot of suicides in developing countries, basically due to the high cost of inputs and necessity of borrowing to get a crop in. Once the inevitable bad years hit the small farmers go under. Also dismissing these activists as anti-science seems more like an ad-homonin argument than a real argument.

GMOs are not a “thing”, they are a set of relationships, and it is the context created by these relationships that is driving farmers to suicide. GMOs are not a disembodied “technology” as so many pro-GMO commentators try to present. These commentators then proceed to protect this abstract construction of GMOs as disembodied technologies from the evidence of reality. In reality, what exists is a GMO complex, or nexus, that has an impact on real ecosystems and real farmers.

Shutting out evidence from reality is a completely unscientific approach. Reality cannot be cooked up in papers, no matter how prestigious the journals in which these concoctions are published. Reality is what happens in reality – the reality of farmers’ suicides, reality of the emergence of super-pests and super-weeds, the reality of rising costs of seed as royalties are extracted from poor peasants. These are no abstractions; rather, they are the lived realities of the consequences of GMOs.

This doesn't seem like a war on science as much as PR from Monsanto. Besides which one of you actually went to Seattle.

GMOs are not a “thing”, they are a set of relationships, and it is the context created by these relationships that is driving farmers to suicide. GMOs are not a disembodied “technology” as so many pro-GMO commentators try to present. These commentators then proceed to protect this abstract construction of GMOs as disembodied technologies from the evidence of reality. In reality, what exists is a GMO complex, or nexus, that has an impact on real ecosystems and real farmers.

Shutting out evidence from reality is a completely unscientific approach. Reality cannot be cooked up in papers, no matter how prestigious the journals in which these concoctions are published. Reality is what happens in reality – the reality of farmers’ suicides, reality of the emergence of super-pests and super-weeds, the reality of rising costs of seed as royalties are extracted from poor peasants. These are no abstractions; rather, they are the lived realities of the consequences of GMOs.

This doesn't seem like a war on science as much as PR from Monsanto.

And here is an article that paints a different picture enabling local farmers in Kenya to increase their yields of eggplants without the use of pesticides using a GMO eggplant variety. From where do you think the local opposition in Kenya or in The Phillipines (where field trials were vandalized by local Greenpeace) came from? Was this home grown opposition or was this from NGO's who spread the evil GMO message to local activist groups. Did they actually study the specifics of this crop and its benefits to local people or was this just a sweeping anti science GMO is evil opinion?

In a rational world, Mr. Rahman would be receiving support from allsides. He is improving the environment and tackling poverty. Yet the visit was rushed, and my escorts from the research institute were nervous about permitting me to speak with him at all.

The new variety had been subjected to incendiary coverage in the localpress, and campaign groups based in Dhaka were suing to have the pest resistant eggplant banned. Activists had visited some of the fields and tried to pressure the farmers to uproot their crops. Our guides from the institute warned that there was a continuing threat of violence — and they were clearly keen to leave.

Why was there such controversy? Because Mr. Rahman’s pest­resistanteggplant was produced using genetic modification. A gene transferred from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (more commonly known by the abbreviation “Bt”), produces a protein that kills the Fruit and Shoot Borer, a species of moth whose larvae feed on the eggplant, without the need for pesticide sprays. (The protein is entirely nontoxic to other insects and indeed humans.) Conventional eggplant farmers in Bangladesh are forced to spray theircrops as many as 140 times during the growing season, and pesticidepoisoning is a chronic health problem in rural areas. But because Bt brinjal is a hated G.M.O., or genetically modified organism, it is Public Enemy No.1 to environmental groups everywhere.

So Kuidaskassikaeb, in a polarized world where ideology and bias is at play, immediately me and you would be put into pro and anti GMO camps. Because I posted a rebuttal to your last post I must obviously be pro GMO. But this is not true. The points you made about corporate agriculture were valid actually in the dependency this can cause on 3rd world country farmers. It is also a huge concern having a corporation like Monsanto able to sue an organic farmer because some of his seeds through inadvertant pollination had some traces of patented trademarked GMO genetic material. This corporate take over of our agricultural sector is a real problem. And so is feeding 7 billion people by the way. I am not pro or anti Monsanto.

People are complaining about bakers with their mouths full of GMO corn bread! A variation on Pops statement

GMO products are not inherently bad. They can be extremely beneficial in the right application. They might possibly create some unforeseen detrimental affects as well depending on the genetic modification. But they do not warrant the fear mongering anti GMO, anti science groups advocate.

I should note, in all fairness, that before owning an eco tourist resort here in Panama I was Regional Director for Latin America for a company that among its many product lines sold micro manipulators and high end research microscopes that are the actual tools that enable genetic researchers to cut sections of chromosomes out of DNA so I spent my fair share of time in labs where similar research was done as what Monsanto does in their labs when developing GMO products. The science is a clear technological jump from selective breeding that started centuries ago. The lab technicians are not evil scientists.

Let's not lose focus on this thread by going off on a huge GMO debate. The point is that anti science does not have an exclusive political home.

My daughters went to high school in Seattle and I lived their most of their time there. I love the city. Just don't go into a cafe and start defending GMO products. The PC correct culture there is formidable.

Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Apeblog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/website: http://www.mounttotumas.com

I would like to add that I am somewhat ambiguous about the increased yields that GMO products enable in feeding Kudzu Apes as this thwarts The Overshoot Predator's arsenal of famine to correct our overshot population. Just saying.

Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Apeblog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/website: http://www.mounttotumas.com

"Elizabeth Warren consistently ranks as a leader of the liberal left, but when it comes to climate change the Massachusetts senator and many other prominent Democrats are lagging behind, a new report claims, and are not taking the steps required to prevent the globe from plunging into manmade catastrophe.

The report, released on Wednesday by California-based liberal Super Pac Climate Hawks Vote, is the first to rank Senate Democrats’ environmental records not solely on congressional votes, but on their leadership and vocal support for action on climate change. That includes things like how many floor speeches a senator has given on the issue, and how many climate-related bills they have introduced.

The report came to some surprising (and not-so-surprising) conclusions about the Democratic party. While some senators scored well on the report’s -100 to +100 scale, most were middle-of-the-pack, and several scored near zero or negatively, meaning they either stayed silent on climate change or actively supported policies that exacerbate it."

Maybe this new report from the "Climate hawks vote" group will open some eyes as to Sen. Elizabeth Warren and her fellow Ds lack of action of Climate Change. The term War on Science. is a bit over the top, IMHO --- perhaps the situation should be described as many Ds being big talkers but then are clearly AWOL when it comes to actually fighting the war on Climate Change.

Again with the strawmen, a whole list of them. I guess if you don't personally know any Liberals, you can believe whatever you want about them.

Some specific things about your list:

We really DON"T know how to handle Corium when something goes wrong.(Fukushima) And nuclear plants ARE potential time bombs in a societal collapse or natural disaster. And we are still storing the waste onsite.

Fossil fuels DO produce greenhouse gasses, and atmospheric chemistry DOES show they lead to potentially catastrophic warming (and extreme weather events), that would lead to crop failures around the globe.

Fracking DOES contaminate ground water, as we face a looming clean water scarcity.

These are scientifically verified facts. All leading to a very REAL future you won't like.

Forest thinning is good, forest clearing is bad.

Don't know enough about GMOs themselves, but the way these companies are enforcing their patents on seed lines is bad, preventing farmers from saving their own seeds, and intimidating farmers who don't use their products through law suits after cross pollination.

I use pesticides. I use herbicides.

My only problem with factory farming is the risk of widespread crop failures through monoculture.

Factory livestock practices are cruel, but otherwise the lower classes would not be able to afford meat.

Anti-vaccination is a right-wing thing, and foolishly places the wider community at risk.

There is evidence for higher incidence of brain cancer with excessive cell phone use. But I could give a shit, I don't use them.

There are cancer clusters in areas near high tension power lines. I would suggest not living near such power lines.

So you really don't know what 'Liberals' believe. (hint: They are people who are as different from each other as they are from you, each taking their own positions on various issues.)

None of that is anti-science. Unless of course, by that you mean anyone that disagrees with you must be anti-science. That's just plain nonsense.

Seems you have a problem with political bigotry. You can't just lump a group of people based on one criteria and claim they are all the same and believe the same things. Not even most of them.

P.S. Academia is made up of scientists. (Academia is how we know what we know. If you don't accept what academia has to say, what do you use, tea leaves? If you are anti-academia...)

I know for a fact most conservatives are not anti-academia. Only the stupid ones.

Corporations are not people, they do not have consciences. They do not distinguish right from wrong because there is no place on the spreadsheet for it. they refer to it as 'externals'. Profit is the bottom line. Inconvenient externals are dealt with based on how much it will cost them.

That is why corporations need to be regulated. We need to be their consciences.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.

Not to mention, you guys are using the term "Liberal" without knowing what it actually means. I often tell people I am a "libertarian" (with a small "l") because it avoids a much longer conversation. But that is just laziness on my part.

Those are who call themselves "Liberals" today (and I think of as neo-Libs) actually are (again with the classical definition) Fascists. I most often say "radical authoritarians" which is closer to correct, and most people are offended to be identified as Fascists.

Nor are US Democrats truly Liberals. They span the spectrum from classical Fascism to rank Socialists.

Fascist is an epithet. Any attempt to apply that label onto a group is merely an ad hom. Heck, Fox News already turned the word liberal itself into an epithet, and liberals capitulated by rebranding themselves "progressives".

As far as science goes, there is a science that is too often ignored here. Ecology, as documented in, let's say, Silent Spring or Limits to Growth. Once you realize that progress has a downside, you have to make some hard choices about what to support. Supporting technology while ignoring the tradeoffs is, in effect, ignorant of the basic science of cause and effect.

That being said, I think some of the fears over GMO and fluoridated water in the left teeter into tinfoil territory, but that kind of ignorance is dwarfed by right-winger ostrich attitudes about anything that might call into question unrestricted consumption.

"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)

I have "greens" friends who have spent their lives mistakenly avoiding microwaves, dishwashers, computers, fluoridation, cell phones, and meat. (I wouldn't be surprised if they also did not vaccinate their children?) Many of these folks still don't eat meat (well chicken is okay, so is fish) don't own microwaves or dishwashers but they all have cell phones/computers . . . but only if not built by the Man. (Apple is of course not built by the Man. Steve Jobs is a pesco-fruitarian . . . or at least was? He might be God?)

I still applaud the philosophical basis of "green" distrust of technology. Most American do rush to new stuff without regard for effectiveness, price, critical habitat loss. A perfect example are these new single-serve "K-Cup" coffee machines. Crap coffee, waste of plastic, and only one dump cup at a time. Use a paper filter and grind your own for a better taste and just as fast.

The "green" critique of technophilia remains correct. Technology is America's High Religion. You only have to look/listen to KaiserJeep to see an example of that. A highly trained engineer who seriously believes in Rocket Ships and Man's Dominion over nature. This is not to say that '"green" ignorance is not pervasive. Anti-GMO has gotten ridiculous. We've had Bt and Roundup Ready crops now for decades and the science is in: it isn't monstrous/evil. Just more of the same, industrial grain-based agriculture that destroys ecosystems and makes people sick. But that is neither a left nor a right problem. It's neolithic.

pstarr wrote:Just more of the same, industrial grain-based agriculture that destroys ecosystems and makes people sick. But that is neither a left nor a right problem. It's neolithic.

You still have freedom of choice. You either eat this and get sick or you starve. Who said that during human overshoot we won't have the freedom to choose?

Most people don't have a choice today. They won't in the future either. If I were trapped in a suburban consumer ghetto (which I am not) then I would graciously accept my morning porridge and afternoon gruel. But I had damn well better be served my evening turkey tetrazzini or I would be very very disappointed.

In any case, proposals are now being floated to cut the amounts in half since people can get fluoride from toothpaste, mouthwash and other products that apply more specifically to the desired target--teeth.

But yeah, I guess if you falsely attribute to the left all the wacko conspiracy theories that are actually espoused by the right, it sure the heck will look like there's a lot of bad science going on on the left!!

dohboi wrote:Ennui….I guess if you falsely attribute to the left all the wacko conspiracy theories that are actually espoused by the right, it sure the heck will look like there's a lot of bad science going on on the left!!

Any objective look at science finds wacko anti-science conspiracy theories on both the right and the left.

For instance, if you look at the Flouride controversy you find that in 2004, on the leftwing U.S. television program Democracy Now, investigative journalist and author of the book The Fluoride Deception, Christopher Bryson claimed that, “the post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride—including the government’s nuclear weapons program.”

So there actually are leftwing as well as rightwing anti-Flouridation nuts? Who knew?

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt

Of course, there are billions of people in the world, and a good portion of them, from whatever political stripe, are wacko (many would consider most of us here to be wacko of course).

But on fluoridation, the right really did spearhead that particular phobia and still hold a pretty strong majority of those opposed to it.

But yeah, you will always be able to find at least one person on any side of the political spectrum that holds whatever particular view you want to name.

If the level of argument here is going to be, "Hey, I found somebody who says their liberal or leftist who believes corporations should take over the world, so, seeeeee, leftists are just as pro-corporate as people on the right."...then I'll just bow out of participating in a dialogue that has descended to the level of utter idiocy.

. Because I posted a rebuttal to your last post I must obviously be pro GMO. But this is not true. The points you made about corporate agriculture were valid actually in the dependency this can cause on 3rd world country farmers. It is also a huge concern having a corporation like Monsanto able to sue an organic farmer because some of his seeds through inadvertant pollination had some traces of patented trademarked GMO genetic material. This corporate take over of our agricultural sector is a real problem. And so is feeding 7 billion people by the way. I am not pro or anti Monsanto.

People are complaining about bakers with their mouths full of GMO corn bread! A variation on Pops statement

GMO products are not inherently bad. They can be extremely beneficial in the right application. They might possibly create some unforeseen detrimental affects as well depending on the genetic modification. But they do not warrant the fear mongering anti GMO, anti science groups advocate.

This may come as a surprise to you but that position is the standard liberal position. Even Mother Jones and the Nation have written the same articles that say exactly the same thing. I don't follow the GMO arguments, but when I do that is what I get. Liberals bitch about the social effects of a technology and you can't even find the science. When corporations don't like the science, corporate PR attacks the scientists and science.

I guess I consider the latter a war on science, and the former dealing with the reality of change.

Sorry, ennui. Nobody did any rebranding. The Progressive movement has existed since the end of the 19th century.

What is Progressivism?

Progressivism is the specifically American development of liberal populism that seeks social and economic justice above all else, most specifically with reference to the obstacles posed to social and economic justice by large corporations and banks. Though Progressives strongly support civil liberties, the "progress" in Progressivism lies, most fundamentally, with ensuring, as the American pledge to the flag puts it, "justice for all". Because of this core concern, Progressives have advocated governance "of the people, by the people, for the people", the phrase "the people" here standing in sharpest contrast to governance by the corporation, or rather its principle owners and beneficiaries.

Progressivism 101: The differences between progressivism and liberalism

Progressives tend to oppose monopolies and powerful corporate trusts. As a result, they favor trust-busting and regulation in order to check corporate corruption and strength. Some progressives are disappointed with President Obama, who has used markedly liberal policies to end the financial crisis. Instead of directing the Justice Department to launch anti-trust investigations against the nation’s largest financial firms, he has instead favored government bailouts and government takeovers. The more traditional progressive response to banks and companies that are “too big to fail,” would be to make them smaller.

Progressives also favor environmental protection, conservation and stewardship, and energy independence. A liberal solution to high energy costs might be to increase federal spending for a program like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Progressives, however, would “also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics.”

Progressives are opposed to the efforts of corporate entities that seek greater influence in government. As previously mentioned, progressives like to strengthen democracy, and generate more power for the public. That’s why the progressive movement was responsible for the constitutional amendment that allowed for the direct election of U.S. Senators (members of the Right should note that Scott Brown [R-MA] could not have been elected without this important contribution). Now, progressives support the public financing of elections, they support direct elections, and they support other efforts to reform government and politics.

To understand the root cause of where the American People find themselves today one must look no further than FDR's speech which sums up the history of power in America.

FDR Speech before the 1936 Democratic National ConventionJune 27, 1936

The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution - all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small-businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

The growth of oligarchy in America happened throughout the 20th Century and is a matter of historical fact.

Progressivism is the movement that arose to fight back, and it's thread extends back all the way to the end of the 19th century. That movement is not dead and is represented in Congress by the Progressive Caucus. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the leading spokesperson for the Progressive movement.

Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (1906)

Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle to expose the appalling working conditions in the meat-packing industry. His description of diseased, rotten, and contaminated meat shocked the public and led to new federal food safety laws.

Before the turn of the 20th century, a major reform movement had emerged in the United States. Known as progressives, the reformers were reacting to problems caused by the rapid growth of factories and cities. Progressives at first concentrated on improving the lives of those living in slums and in getting rid of corruption in government.

By the beginning of the new century, progressives had started to attack huge corporations like Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, and the Armour meat-packing company for their unjust practices. The progressives revealed how these companies eliminated competition, set high prices, and treated workers as "wage slaves."

The progressives differed, however, on how best to control these big businesses. Some progressives wanted to break up the large corporations with anti-monopoly laws. Others thought state or federal government regulation would be more effective. A growing minority argued in favor of socialism, the public ownership of industries. The owners of the large industries dismissed all these proposals: They demanded that they be left alone to run their businesses as they saw fit.

Theodore Roosevelt was the president when the progressive reformers were gathering strength. Assuming the presidency in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley, he remained in the White House until 1909. Roosevelt favored large-scale enterprises. "The corporation is here to stay," he declared. But he favored government regulation of them "with due regard of the public as a whole."

Roosevelt did not always approve of the progressive-minded journalists and other writers who exposed what they saw as corporate injustices. When David Phillips, a progressive journalist, wrote a series of articles that attacked U.S. senators of both political parties for serving the interests of big business rather than the people, President Roosevelt thought Phillips had gone too far. He referred to him as a man with a "muck-rake."

Even so, Roosevelt had to admit, "There is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up with the muck-rake." The term "muckraker" caught on. It referred to investigative writers who uncovered the dark side of society.

A lot of lefties have a back-to-the-land fantasy and they are convinced that it's GMOs that are preventing them from quitting their day jobs and becoming goat herders. However, many right wingers have exactly the same back-to-the-land fantasy (except with more guns) and they don't like GMOs either. But the leftists seem to have this idea that this is lifestyle is somehow just out of grasp and Monsanto is at fault. And they complain that GMOs are not socially engineering their own personal utopia.

People here are more articulate than most GMO critics. Often we see the people who are extremely emotional but short on specifics and seem to have a hard time following a train of thought. I think many of them are actually bipolar, and with bipolar disorder comes a lot of inflammatory problems and mysterious but real health problems. Look up any inflammatory disease on the web and you will immediately find conspiracy web sites blaming that specific disease on GMOs, which are likely to seem totally convincing to someone bipolar.